The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to borrow money from the injured party as stated in the facts charged of this case, the Defendant did not use the F’s reputation or deception the purpose of borrowing money, and had the intent or ability to repay money from the injured party at the time of borrowing money.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Defendant also asserted the same in the lower court.

Therefore, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning that the defendant's intentional act of deception and deception is recognized.

B. In addition to the following circumstances, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is justifiable, and contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

1) The deception as an act of fraud does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of a juristic act, and it is sufficient to say that it is the basis for the judgment that the actor would have made a dispositive act desired by the actor by omitting the other party into mistake. Therefore, in a case where the use of money belongs to and borrows money, if there is a relationship between the other party that would not have been lent if the genuine use would have been notified, the deception as an act of fraud should be deemed to have been committed (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do707 delivered on September 15, 1995). 2) The defendant is responsible for the victim and would have paid money to the victim.

The victim stated this.